IANIS +
Peer Reviews & Case Study Reports
Guidelines and Template
Introduction These notes are designed to help you complete your IANIS+ Peer Review Visit Report for which a Template is provided (attached). The Peer Review Visit (PRV) Reports have 2 parts. Firstly, you should provide a short description of the host region and an assessment of the visit you and your group have made; secondly, you are required to provide an analysis of 2 good practice ICT projects which you investigated in some depth as part of your visit. When complete, the reports will have 2 purposes: To help us identify good practices of regional innovation and networking with regard to Information Society projects (preferably RIAP projects) which we can then publish on-line as well as in a brochure to help other regions; To help us assess whether or not the report is of a sufficient standard to approve the payment of travel and subsistence expenses (up to a maximum of €5,250) for the visit.
We remind you that it is mandatory to complete and submit a satisfactory Peer Review Visit report and two good practice case study reports. Each report will be independently assessed by an IS expert, Jane Tebbutt, who has been working on regional innovation and IS projects for about 8 years; including evaluation studies, benchmarking and other work for the European Commission as well as in Member States. Her email address is janetebbutt@tiscali.co.uk or you can contact her by telephone on: +44 (0)1424 777180 Jane will be looking to make sure that your PRV report is of sufficient quality that she can recommend that your travel and subsistence claim is paid, assuming you have complied with all other requirements stipulated by the IANIS+ Secretariat. She will be looking, in particular, for good quality, interesting case studies which can be edited for inclusion in an online database and also included in a high quality publication of good practice regional ICT projects that will be produced towards the end of the work programme. This is your chance to publicise your good work and best practices to others across the EU. Hints and Tips Below, we offer some general good practice guidelines to help you produce a good quality PRV Report. When you look at the PRV Report template you will find some more specific guidance relating to each question. Answer the question, stick to the point – we don’t want long descriptions of irrelevant aspects Keep it focused – we are looking for relevant reports, not long reports. About 12-15 pages is about right, at least 6 pages being devoted to each case study.
1 Peer Review Visit Report
Be specific, not generic – we need you to identify specific aspects of good practice that you have found, or areas for improvement. These will be the lessons which other regions can learn from. Remember that what is standard practice in one region, may be innovative in another (your) region – and vice-versa. It’s also the case that what was innovative at one time in the past can become routine or standard over time, even in the same region. Try to be as evaluative as possible about what you report. We do not intend that you pass judgement on the work and projects of the host region but it is important (for you, as well as others reading your report) to understand why you found something innovative (or not, as the case might be), to understand and appreciate the context (the difficulties faced, the barriers encountered, and how these might have been overcome), and why, in the end, the project was a success or not. Provide quality – we need well written reports, which are complete, have been spellchecked and which make sense. Poor quality reports will not pass expert assessment. Be truthful – as stated above, we are not interested in ‘ranking regions’; we are interested in learning and sharing what we learn. It is just as important to highlight problems which can then be avoided by others as it is to show good ideas which can then be adapted or reproduced elsewhere. As well as making your report useful and relevant for others, try to make your report as interesting as possible – try and include some personal experiences, photos or other memorabilia, and include some quotations from the people whose region you visited and whom you met. It will help the learning and dissemination process if your PRV Report can indicate your opinion of the extent to which any good practice that you found in the host region could - or could not - be suitably adapted for use in your own region. Some good ideas and practices travel well - others don’t. Don’t be afraid to ask questions – Jane is here to help you prepare your PRV Report if you need it.
2 Peer Review Visit Report
IANIS+ Peer Review Visit Report PART ONE: Report on the Visit A.
Q. No A1. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6.
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Question Name of Host Region Host Member State Name of Visiting Region Visiting Member State Dates of Visit (dd/mm/yy) Names of Visiting Delegates Name/Contact Details of Rapporteur – ie name, phone and e-mail Name/Contact Details of Host Region contact – ie name, phone and e-mail Is the Host Region mostly urban; rural or mixed? What is the approximate population, sq km and GDP per capita of the Host Region? Is the host region wholly Objective 1, Objective 2, non-Objective areas, or some mix of these Response
From: (a) (b) (c)
To:
A7.
A8.
A9.
A10.
Population: 2 Area (km ): GDP p.c.:
A11.
Please attach a schedule of your visits/activities. Please also attach photographs or other materials (e.g. logos, other graphics, etc.) to illustrate your report.
B.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAMME(S) VISITED
B1. This section should be 4 or 5 paragraphs. Explain (briefly) the purpose of your visit and how it relates to the strategic context of your region. Give some of the highlights of the visit; and why these aspects were particularly important or useful to you – eg best practices, new opportunities etc. We want a balance between description and analysis
3 Peer Review Visit Report
C.
INNOVATION
C. What did you see or hear about that was, in your opinion or experience, original or innovative? Give details and describe the nature of the innovation. Remember innovation can involve new technologies or applications, but it can also be about processes – new ways of doing things, new methods, new ways of governance, new audiences, new ways of funding, new scale of intervention etc.
D.
LEARNING POINTS
D1. What did you learn at the programme or strategic level? As well as picking up or developing some good ideas, you should include any aspects to avoid (eg delays in implementation, lack of communication and their consequences etc). Remember, ALL experiences are valuable, and innovative projects need to be allowed to get things wrong sometimes. The key thing is to learn from those mistakes and not repeat them. Again, be clear and focused – we want specific details not generalisations.
4 Peer Review Visit Report
D2. What learning or experience did you bring to the Host Region? On what specific points could they benefit from your experience (eg new ways of communicating with beneficiaries; project management; policy development etc). Are they going to adopt any of your approaches? If so, which ones? The visit should involve a two-way exchange of experience and we’d like to know what you think you were able to offer your hosts by way of useful experience, good practice, helpful advice, etc.
E.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
E1. Overall, what was your impression of the host region’s regional innovation actions programme (or related information society development in the frame of the Structural Funds)?
E2.
What do you perceive as particularly successful in the host region compared to your own experience? Did you have to face the same challenges/obstacles? If yes, please explain how you overcame the challenge. If no, please explain why, in your opinion, your region did not have to deal with that particular challenge. We want specific details not generalisations.
5 Peer Review Visit Report
E3.
Have any collaborative opportunities been identified (eg new contacts, potential for new partnerships or common projects, networking activities with other regions)? If so please give details.
G. IMPACT G1. Please give 3 bullet point sentences which summarise your visit experience. They can cover any aspect but should be personal. By reading them, a casual observer should get a real ‘feel’ for what the experience meant to you.
6 Peer Review Visit Report
PART TWO: ICT PROJECT Case Studies I and II
Please use the form below twice, once for each ICT project that you are reporting on.
Question Project Name – full name Project Name – acronym (if there is one) Project URL Project Status – please tick Project Focus – please tick Project Logo and Photo – to be supplied as a jpeg
Response
Ongoing e-biz econtent ehealth
Complete einfrastructure elearning e-gov Other (please describe)
1
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR
Response
Question Name Job title Organisation Telephone number E-mail address
2
PROJECT FUNDING & MANAGEMENT
Response € % % (000’s) Euro amount Type of programme Other EC funds National public funds Regional public funds Private sector investment Anticipated income Other Type Role
Question Total funding (in € 000’s ) How much is/was from Structural Funds? (% and euro) A % breakdown of how the rest of total funding is/was made up
Who are/were the project partners? Include types (eg HEI, SME, regional government etc) and roles (eg funder, end users, suppliers etc) of each organisation.
Name
Is/was this a RIAP project? Yes or No Has the project been evaluated? If so, give brief details of its findings, with a citation for the report, and contact details of how to obtain it.
7 Peer Review Visit Report
3
3.1
ABOUT THE PROJECT
Aims, Objectives and Key Targets – What is/was this project trying to achieve? Give details with some key targets where possible.
3.2
Project Description – Describe the project. What exactly is/was it trying to achieve? (list the different activities developed). Who are/were the beneficiaries? How is/was the project communicating with them (regular meetings, what kind of interactions)? Make sure you give enough detail so that any reader understands the project and how it works. THIS SECTION IS CRITICAL.
8 Peer Review Visit Report
3.3 Project Rationale – Why was the project needed? (eg demand-based project; strengthening of a strategic field for business or innovation in the region etc) What is the background or context (social, economic, political) to its development. Is it part of a wider development strategy or a continuation of another initiative? (please explain)
4
INNOVATION – Describe the innovative aspects of the project. Remember innovation does not have
to be technical, it can be process based, eg new ways of doing things, new methods, new ways of governance, new partnerships, new audiences , new ways of funding, new scale of intervention etc.
5
5.1
SUCCESS FACTORS and GOOD PRACTICE
List (below) 3 good practice aspects which the project team believes are critical to the project’s success. These can be anything. Ideas include: the amount of funding, strength of the partnership, getting the right people involved, excellent administrative systems, clear allocation of resources, very strong demand, effective dissemination, excellent participation by users, strong leadership, political support, etc.
9 Peer Review Visit Report
5.2
For each aspect, describe the good practice and how it contributed(s) to the overall success of the project. Description and contribution to project success
Good Practice Aspect 1. 2. 3. 5.3
What do you perceive as particularly successful about the project in comparison with your own experience? Again, be clear and focused – we want specific details, not generalisations.
6
6.1
ISSUES
List (below) 3 aspects or problems which have been difficult for the project. Ideas include problems attracting users, difficulties in agreeing plans and strategies, lack of political support, running out of resources, unforeseen delays, lack of evaluation, lack of involvement of end-users or partners etc For each, describe how the project overcame (or is overcoming) the barrier or issue. Description of how the issue is being/was dealt with
6.2 Issue 1. 2. 3. 6.3
Did similar projects in your region have to deal with the same barriers? If yes, please explain how they overcame the challenge. If no, please explain why, in your opinion, your region did not have to deal with that particular challenge. We want specific details not generalisations
10 Peer Review Visit Report
7
ACHIEVEMENTS - What has the project achieved? Be as specific as possible. Think about outputs
and whether targets have been met. Also think about the impacts on the partners, the beneficiaries, the region as a whole etc. Remember impacts can be quantifiable (e.g. ‘x’ jobs were created, or ‘y’ people are now trained to use a particular application) or qualitative (e.g. the workforce is now better educated, or hospitals have a new tool which should help them be more efficient etc).
7.1 7.2
Overall, what percentage of targets have been met? Describe (below) 3 achievements of the project: please be specific Responses
Question What % of targets have been met? Achievement 1 Achievement 2 Achievement 3
8
8.1 8.2 8.3
SUSTAINABILITY and TRANSFERABILITY
How will the good work in the project be continued? (eg are end users, businesses, partners or stakeholders going to use the project methodology, or the project products or services)? Are there plans for a follow-up project? If so, which institutional structure will take over the project, how will it be funded? Are there any legal aspects to consider etc? Is there anything your region will be adopting as a result (eg methodology, best practices) of your visit to and review of the project? Give as much detail as you can. Responses
Question How will the project be continued? Is there a follow-up project Is your region going to adopt anything – please describe
YES
NO
Please describe
9
SOME QUANTITATIVE VIEWS
This section is designed to capture your views on various aspects of the project. For each aspect please give a score between 1 and 5 and justify your scoring with appropriate remarks. 5 = excellent 4 = very good 3 = good 2 = fair 1 = poor We are not going to publish these scores since they are very subjective. However, it will help us choose the ‘best’ case studies to profile in the printed publication. Your remarks will be very helpful to us to explain your scores; and only positive comments will be directly quoted. Please give your opinion on the following aspects of the project, and – of equal importance – please explain or justify your answers:
11 Peer Review Visit Report
Criteria Quality of Management – consider systems, the experience and quality of the consortium, their ability to guide, to facilitate consensus-seeking, ability to adapt, as well as the allocation of resources, clear project plan etc User Participation and Satisfaction – consider the extent to which the project engaged beneficiaries, at appropriate times, and whether they are satisfied. Innovation – this score should be based on your comments in the innovation section above. Sustainability – this score should be based on your comments in the sustainability section above. Value for Money – does the project represent value for money? Impact – has this project made a difference? Acid Test – overall, what score would you give this project, taking everything into account?
Score
Comments
THANK YOU. If you have any queries about completing this form please contact Jane Tebbutt: +44 1424 777180 or janetebbutt@tiscali.co.uk
12 Peer Review Visit Report